457
Trump's Team 'Literally Popping Champagne' Over Supreme Court Taking Up Immunity Claim
(www.rollingstone.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2024
457 points (97.9% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2215 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a massive victory on Wednesday by agreeing to rule on whether he is immune from prosecution for acts committed while he was president.
If Trump wins the election, he’ll of course appoint an attorney general who will toss the case, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules this summer.
“Literally popping champagne right now,” a lawyer close to Donald Trump told Rolling Stone late on Wednesday.
For months, Trump’s lawyers expected the federal trial to start this summer, and they have actively prepared for that scenario.
During oral arguments before the D.C. Court of Appeals in January, the former president’s lawyers argued that presidential immunity should cover everything, even having political rivals assassinated.
The court disagreed, unanimously rejecting Trump’s immunity claim earlier this month.
The original article contains 437 words, the summary contains 129 words. Saved 70%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Maybe Biden should take one for the country. You know the court would rule against absolute immunity for something Biden did. And he's old enough, that he probably wouldn't even see jail. No more Trump, no question as to if the president is above the law. Win win.
The second they rule in Trump's favor, Biden basically has free reign to do whatever the fuck he wants.
Well, that's the thing, they won't rule in Trump's favor. The lower court thoroughly destroyed Trump's case, to the point where the SCOTUS shouldn't taken the case in the first place and let the lower court decision stand. There's no legal support at all for Trump's claims. This all makes it pretty clear the conservative majority on the court merely wanted to toss Trump a bone with a delay and increase his chances of getting back in office.
And what forces SCOTUS to judge based on “legal support”
You know how parents would say "because I said so" without any real justification for making a decision and there was nothing you could do about it?
That's the SCOTUS. Literally no oversight and they can do whatever the fuck they want.
Somehow the founders didn't see that as being a problem.
I think impeachment was supposed to be a check on their powers, but that never happens.
No one wanted to "politicize" impeachment so Congress just played ball with the Supreme Court and would reword laws till the current batch of justices gave a thumbs up. Or wait for the slant of the court to change and try again. This has, of course, put us in our current predicament. We should be watching the impeachment proceedings for Alito and Thomas, at the very least, right now, but instead we are going to see the hubby of an insurrectionist rule on wether insurrection is okay or not if a sitting president does it. All while that justice and another pocket millions in "gifts" from right wing fascist Nazis.
Nothing, other than wanting to have an historically favorable legacy. But ignoring that, despite Alito and Thomas being unabashed GOP operatives, ruling in favor of immunity would be a stretch for even them. Undoubtedly all the justices realize that if they affirm presidential immunity for life, a president can Seal Team Six one or all of the justices, on a whim. A ruling to affirm immunity would neutralize the power of the court, something an even unethical and selfish justice would want to prevent.
But is it safe to assume they’re smart enough to realize that?
My gut says yes, they’re smart, some of them just have questionable ethics.
Absolutely. One thing I've learned over the years is that intelligence and ethics are two totally separate qualities. I've listened to SCOTUS televised proceedings a few times and the level of mastery of the law and history, and the lines of thinking and arguments are quite stunning. I say this equally of both the conservative and liberal members of the court. But that's not to say they don't steer the arguments and decisions in a way that aligns with their ideology and/or their political allies.